Instigator / Pro
25
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#1673

THBT: TRUMP is NOT a RELIABLE SOURCE of INFORMATION

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
3
Better conduct
1
4

After 4 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1523
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Description

RESOLVED: TRUMP is NOT a RELIABLE SOURCE of INFORMATION

TRUMP is the ex-game show host who is current President of the United States.

RELIABLE is "suitable or fit to be relied on; worthy of dependence or reliance; trustworthy"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reliable

SOURCE is "the person, place or thing from which (information) comes or is acquired"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/source

INFORMATION is "that which resolves uncertainty; things that are or can be known about a given topic; communicable knowledge of something"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/information

BURDEN of PROOF
Burden of Proof is shared.

PRO will argue that Trump is not to be trusted as a source of information.
CON will argue that Trump is a trustworthy source of information.

PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this topic.
No trolls or kritiks, please.

- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new args in R3
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

-->
@oromagi

so every president wants to be impeached

Cool

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Dr.Franklin is quite false in such assertion. Most presidents’ (since polling started in 1950s) impeachment polls grow slowly over time. By 2014, Obama had seen roughly 8 serious calls for impeachment and GOP support for impeachment By July 2014 GOP support for Obama’s impeachment was at 68%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama?wprov=sfti1

-->
@oromagi

you see, Impeachment polls only increase when a republican president is swore in

-->
@Dr.Franklin

The poll states 39% of all Americans- including GOP. So, in 2007, Democrats controlled the House and Senate and enough popular support to credibly begin impeachment proceedings and yet the Democrats refrained. Certainly, Bush merited impeachment for manufacturing evidence to justify the re-invasion of Iraq, for falsely reporting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, for failing to ask Congress to declare war, for falsifying US budget by leaving out trillions in war expenditures, for authorizing the kidnap and torture of many individuals without benefit of trial or even habeus corpus, for authorizing spying on US citizens phone lines and emails without getting a warrant, etc., etc.

According to FiveThirtyEight, popular support for Trump's impeachment stood at 39.9%, the day Trump withheld $400 million in Congressionally approved spending until Ukraine manufactured false accusations against Trump's leading opponent in the 2020 election. Trump's own public account of the the July 25 phone call is certainly sufficiently damning to convict Trump of bribery, misuse of taxpayer funds, collusion with foreign nationals to corrupt the 2020 US Election, illegal use of security clearances to conceal evidence of a crime, etc.

Personally, I think Trump merited impeachment more than any other president once it became clear that Trump knew that Mike Flynn was a secret agent on Russian and Turkish payrolls before Trump gave Flynn the job of top US spy and covered up for that Russian spy by firing the acting Atty Gen Sally Yates- 3 to 4 weeks into his administration. I still can't understand why any American prioritizing US interests would not remove any executive for having so profoundly compromised National Security and have concluded that Trump supporters do not consider the preservation of the US a worthwhile endeavor.

-->
@oromagi

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/39_favor_impeaching_bush `-`-`--`and that's just from 1000

Most people wanted impeachment of Trump before ukrainegate, which is still BS

-->
@Dr.Franklin

The claim is that the Democratic Party has tried to impeach every GOP president since Eisenhower. The claim is 100% false. The only time before Trump that the Democratic Party supported impeachment was Nixon but since the GOP also supported impeachment would not be fair to represent that as Democratic Party only. Dr.Franklin mistakes some Democratic congresspeople for the Democratic Party and by that mistake arrives at another false conclusion.

-->
@oromagi

I never claimed that it was the absolute truth but shit like this is ridiculous

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/

If it was 5 out of the 6, then it should be mostly true

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Dr.Franklin: WashPo,NYPost complete liars, International Creation Ministries absolute truth.

complete joke, these fact checks are complete liars, every one of these claims are true,bloating, or satire

-->
@Nemiroff

I think he was joking.

-->
@PressF4Respect

Personal attacks need not be singular. By conflating liberal with retard you are essentially calling each and every liberal a retard. Rather then attacking their veliefs, you are personally attacking a large group of people, and thus commiting an ad hominem.

Its also dismissive of people not based on arguments, thus intellectually dishonest and an example of some pathetic conduct.

-->
@oromagi

ORO's Sandcastle Status:
STOMPED ON

-->
@oromagi

“‘LIBTARD’ is a portmanteau of liberal and retard, conflating liberal ideology with developmental disability. Of course, dropping ad homs while advocating rational discourse is fairly obvious contradiction. PressF injects emotion into his claim in a clause dependent on the very sentence where he pretends to reason. I call PressF's claim self-disproved.”

Ad Homs refer to attacks made on a particular person’s character. As I have not made attacks against any particular person, by definition, it does not qualify as an ad hom.

-->
@oromagi

Yeet Yeet
Take a seat
Listen to the beat and
Taste defeat

-->
@PressF4Respect

"Make it one week and I’ll be down"

Done. Down indeed.

-->
@PressF4Respect

"I make my arguments based on IMPERATIVE FACTS and not LIBTARDED FEELINGS.
#facts"

"LIBTARD" is a portmanteau of liberal and retard, conflating liberal ideology with developmental disability. Of course, dropping ad homs while advocating rational discourse is fairly obvious contradiction. PressF injects emotion into his claim in a clause dependent on the very sentence where he pretends to reason. I call PressF's claim self-disproved.

-->
@oromagi

👌 fanks

-->
@oromagi

Make it one week and I’ll be down

-->
@oromagi

Well I’M not MOST DEBATERS.

I make my arguments based on IMPERATIVE FACTS and not LIBTARDED FEELINGS.

#facts

-->
@PressF4Respect

I imagine most debaters have well formulated opinions on this topic & need little time for research.

-->
@oromagi

Two days for argument?

Bruh

-->
@oromagi

Yeet Yeet
Taste defeat

-mah bootiful poem

No debate in school. I learned "house" language on DDO.

-->
@oromagi

Where'd you learn what TH means?

Did you used to debate at school?